Lovemore Moyo, chairman of opposition party Movement for Democratic Change, was voted speaker of parliament, winning with 110 votes over Paul Themba Nyathi, a candidate from a smaller faction of the MDC.

The win means that the MDC holds a one-seat majority in parliament—100 seats to Zanu-PF’s 99—but, The Times of London writes, that may be all the party needs for a psychological advantage over Mugabe, who has ruled Zimbabwe for 28 years.

Although the win signals a possible change for the country, Zimbabwe may still have a long way to go before it achieves free and fair elections. Just hours before Moyo won the election, two opposition members of parliament were arrested outside the assembly chamber for reportedly trying to swing the vote in Mugabe’s favor.

But so far, there is little evidence that the two have struck a deal. Earlier this month, Mugabe reportedly agreed to a power-sharing deal with Arthur Mutambara, the leader of an MDC faction group, but the agreement completely left out Tsvangirai. Critics expressed doubt that the deal could help the struggling country.

While the terms of the deal with Mutambara were not immediately clear, analysts believed the agreement was likely to form a national unity administration that could possibly give Mugabe control of the new government. The MDC’s recent parliament win, however, may throw the agreement into question.

He compares the recent events in Zimbabwe to those of nearly 30 years ago when Zimbabwe was still the British colony of Rhodesia. Mugabe threatened to kill anyone who participated in the country’s first multiracial election, which would give whites 28 out of 100 parliamentary seats.

“Today, the world is once again allowing Mugabe to get away with murder,” Kirchick writes. “Mugabe and his generals have no interest in ‘sharing’ power, never mind giving it up. Any agreement that gives significant political control to Mugabe would betray all the Zimbabweans who risked their lives for democracy.”

Political scientists Stephen Brown, Chandra Lekha Sriram and Marie-Joëlle Zahar analyze the situation in the Guardian, agreeing that power-sharing agreements are often the best choice, but that such a deal most likely won’t work in Zimbabwe.

They write that “Allowing a small number of elites to determine outcomes is inherently undemocratic, and manifestly ignores voters’ choices. It would make more sense to hold new elections as soon as possible, preferably under a caretaker government.”